Result: Appeal dismissed.

Ramanna, J.

The appellant/insurer has come up with this appeal challenging the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensatrion, awarding compensation of Rs. 2,91,960/- together with interest at 12% p.a.

2. The case of the respondents 1 to 5 is that the deceased Sheik Nazim was a driver working under Respondent No.6, who is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP-12/T/2955. On 12/8/2001 as usual, the deceased Sheik Nazim who was the driver of the lorry was driving the vehicle. During the course of employment, he developed chest pain and severe sweating, therefore he rushed to the Apolo Hospital, Hyderabad, where he was examined at about 3.30 p.m. and he was declared dead at 5.00 p.m. Therefore, respondents 1 to 5 being the wife an children filed the claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Bidar. The appellant who is the insurer of the vehicle filed the objection statement and contested the claim petition. After considering the evidence, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation found that the death of late. Sheik Nazim was during the course of his employeent and awarded compensation to the respondents 1 to 5/ claimant and fastened the liability on the appellant to indemnify the owner of the vehicle.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5/claimants.

4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that death of the driver is not on account of any accident. If there was an accident while on duty, then the appellant may be liable to indemnify the owner. It is further argued that in the instant case, late. Sheik Nazim was a driver who drove the vehicle and immediately went to the hospital on the complaint of chest pain and severe sweating for the last one hour and subsequently, died during the course of treatment, for which the appellatn is not entitled to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Though insurance policy was in force, the appellant is not entitled to indemnify the owner as there was no accident and late. Sheik Nazim has not sustained any injuries on account of the accident. Therefore, under Section 147(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant/insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner. It is further argued that respondnets 1 to 5 have not examined the doctor who treted late. Sheik Nazim in the Apolo Hospital. Therefore, when the respondents failed to prove that there was any nexus with regard to the death of late. Sheik Nazim and his employment. The order of the Commissioner is incorrect, illegal and liable to be set aside. Hence, he prayed for allowing the appeal.

5. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Compnay relied on a decison reported in case of Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and Another Vs. Francis De Costa and Another, AIR 1997 SC 432 wherein, it has been held thus:

“Employment injury - Compensation - Employee on his way to factory, a place of employment - Met with accident one kilometer away from said place - Injuries sustatined by employee - Cannot be said to be caused by ancient arising out of and in the course of employent.”

6. Therefore, it is argued that in the instant case, the deceased has not sustained injuries and there is no accident caused and sudden death of the deceased was on account of strain and stress. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to indemnify the owner of the vehicle.

7. As against this, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that late. Sheik Nazim was a driver under respondent No. 6, who is the owner of the vehicle. According to the evidence of P.W.1, who is the wife of late. Sheik Nazim, the deceased was working as a driver under respondent No.6 on that day, her husband was on duty and he left Gulbarga to Hyderabad with loaded lorry. It is further argued that the discharge summary issued by the Apolo Hospital discloses that the patient came by walking to the emergenc